SUMMARY Law of Precedents and Res Judicata Sentencing Policy ...

of 29

SUMMARY

Of Papers of Judicial Officers in Wardha District

for Workshop on

Law of Precedents and Res Judicata

for Workshop on

Sentencing Policy and Victim Compensation

of 29

INDEX

Sr. No Topic Pages

1. Law of Precedents and Res Judicata 3-16

2. Sentencing Policy and Victim Compensation Scheme 17-29

of 29

LAW OF PRECEDENT

What do you mean by the word “Precedent”?

1. According to Dias, a precedent is a previous instance or case which

furnishes an example or rule for subsequent conduct and a pattern upon which

subsequent conduct is based.

2. ‘Judicial precedent’ means a judgment of a Court of law cited as an

authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for

the legal principle embodied in its decision. A judicial precedent is a decision of

the Court used as a source for future decision making.

3. A precedent means anything said or done by a Court, which furnishes a

rule for subsequent conduct. Salmond says, “Precedents are judicial decisions

followed in subsequent cases”. Our judicial system is a three-tier system under

the Constitution of India. Apex Court is the Supreme Court, below it there are

High Courts of each State and below the High Court there are subordinate courts

in that state.

Foundation of Precedents : Stare Decisis –

4. The law of precedent is founded on the principle of “Stare Decisis”. It is

an abbreviation of the Latin maxim “Stare Decisis Et Non Quieta Movere” which

literally mean “Do not move settled things”. The doctrine thus means, “To stand

by decided thing or to uphold previous ruling or recognize precedents”. It also

represents a principle of law settled by the courts long ago and followed by series

of the decisions for a long period where the facts are substantially the same. It is

binding in nature and should be strictly adhered to by the Courts.

5. The authority of the Supreme Court as precedent is found in Article 141 of

the Constitution of India. It provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall

be binding on all Courts within territory of India. In order to know exact meaning

of the precedent, it is necessary to know as to what is meant by “the law declared

by the Supreme Court” appearing in Article 141.

6. Spate of decisions of the Supreme Court have clarified that there is vast

difference between the expressions “the law declared by the Supreme Court” and

“the law enacted by the Legislature”. To declare the law means to interpret the

law. This interpretation of law is binding on all the Courts in India. This is called as

precedent. Thus, what binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of

of 29

fact. The law declared by the Supreme Court is essential for proper

administration of justice. The main object of doctrine of precedent is that the law

of the land should be clear, certain & consistent so that the Courts shall follow it

without any hesitation In Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh1, it has been held

as under.

“The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty

and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development

of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the

consequence of transactions forming part of daily affairs. And, therefore,

the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the

decisions of a Court.”

Ratio decidendi

7. Jurist Goodhart in chapter “Determining the ratio decidendi of a case”

[Essays in Jurisprudence and the Common Law] has observed that the ratio

decidendi of a case can be defined as the material facts of the case plus the

decision thereon. The same learned writer who advanced this definition went on

to suggest a helpful formula. Suppose that in a certain case facts A, B and C exist;

and suppose that the court finds that facts B and C are material and fact A

immaterial, and then reaches conclusion X (e.g. Judgment for the plaintiff, or

judgment for the defendant). Then the doctrine of precedent enables us to say

that in any future case in which facts B and C exist, or in which facts A and B and C

exist, the conclusion must be X. If in a future case, facts A, B, C and D exist, and

fact D is held to be material, the first case will not be a direct authority, though it

may be of value as an analogy.

8. Ratio decidendi means the reason or the principle upon which the case has

been decided by the higher Courts and only this much is binding on the

subordinate courts while applying the earlier decision. The ratio decidendi can be

ascertained by an analysis of facts. There is a difference between the ratio

decidendi or the basis of reasons or the principles underlying a decision and the

ultimate relief granted or manner of disposal adopted in a given case.2 In

another case Krishna Kumar vs.Union of India and others,3 it has been

observed that:

1 AIR 1989 SC 1933

2 Executive Engineer vs. N.C. Budharaj, (2001) 2 SCC 72

3 (1990) 4 SCC 207

of 29

“In other words, the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which a

question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.

The ratio decidendi is the underlying principle, namely, the general reasons

or the general grounds upon which the decision is based on the test or

abstract from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives

rise to the decision. The ratio decidendi has to be ascertained by an

analysis of the facts of the case and the process of reasoning involving the

major premise consisting of a pre-existing rule of law, either statutory or

judge-made, and a minor premise consisting of the material facts of the

case under immediate consideration. If it is not clear, it is not the duty of

the court to spell it out with difficulty in order to be bound by it.”

In case of Rajiv Singh Dalal (Dr.) Vs. Chaudhari Devilal University, Sirsa

and another,4 Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions,

has observed that:

The decision of a court is a precedent, if it lays down some principle of law

supported by reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without

laying down any principle of law and without giving reasons do not amount

to a precedent.

OBITER DICTUM

9. In contrast with the ratio decidendi is the obiter dictum. The latter is a

mere saying by the way, a chance remark, which is not binding upon future

courts, though it may be respected according to the reputation of the judge, the

eminence of the court, and the circumstances in which it came to be pronounced.

An example would be a rule of law stated merely by way of analogy or

illustration, or a suggested rule upon which the decision is not finally rested. The

reason for not regarding an obiter dictum as binding is that it was probably made

without a full consideration of the cases on the point, and that, if very broad in its

terms, it was probably made without a full consideration of all the consequences

that may follow from it; or the judge may not have expressed a concluded

opinion. It is frequently said that a ruling based upon hypothetical facts is obiter.

This is often true. Thus, if the judge says: “I decide for the defendant; but if the

facts had been properly pleaded I should have found for the plaintiff”, the latter

part of the statement is obiter.”

4 (2008) 9 SCC 284

of 29

10. Thus an obiter dictum means an observation made on a legal point in a

decision but not arising in such manner as to require decision. Such obiter has no

binding precedent but the observations made by the Apex Court will have

considerable weight.5 But, mere casual expressions carry no weight at all and

cannot be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.

Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter

dicta and are not authoritative.6

11. Honourable Supreme Court explained inter relationship in fundamental

rights and doctrine of Res Judicata, stare decisis and merger in case of Union of

India and Others-Vs- Major S.P.Sharma And Others.7 It is held that,

“Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution have to be

protected, but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to ensure that

the decisions rendered by the court are not overturned frequently, that

too, when challenged collaterally as that directly affects the basic

structure of the Constitution incorporating the power of judicial review of

the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that the Court has an extensive

power to correct an error or to review its decision but that cannot be

done at the cost of doctrine of finality. An issue of law can be overruled

later on, but a question of fact, as in the present case, the dispute with

regard to the termination of services cannot be re-opened once it has

been finally sealed in proceeding inter se between the parties up to the

Supreme Court way back in 1980.”

12. It is pertinent to note here that under Article 141 of the Constitution, the

law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and, therefore, even

the principles enunciated by that Court, including the obiter dicta, when they are

stated in clear terms, have a binding force. The obiter dicta of a Judge of

Honourable Supreme Court, even in a dissenting judgment, are entitled to high

respect, especially if there is no direct decision to conclude the question under

another enactment.

SUB SILENTIO

13. If a decision would otherwise be a binding authority, it does not lose that

status, merely because the point was not argued by counsel (this will be

important only as a way of attacking a decision that is of merely persuasive

5 Director of Settlements, A.P. and others vs. M.R. Apparao and another, (2002) 4 SCC 638

6 (2003) 7 SCC 197

7 (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 351

of 29

authority). But what is called a decision sub silentio is not binding: that is to say,

one in which the existence of the particular point was not perceived by the court,

so that it was not discussed in the judgment. This is so, at least, where the

precedent case is that of the same court.

WHETHER JUDGMENTS OF HIGH COURT ARE BINDING AS PRECEDENTS

14. Like Article 141 empowering the Supreme Court to declare the law and

making its precedents binding on all the Courts, there is no specific provision

directly empowering the High Court to declare the law and making its decisions

binding on its subordinate Courts. But it is well settled that the Courts from a

State subordinate to a High Court from that State are bound by its decisions.

Question is as to what is the basis for this settled law. Answer to this question can

be found in the decision of Honourable Supreme Court decision in M/s. East

India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta and another V/s. Collector of Customs,

Calcutta.8 It is ruled in paragraph 29 of the Judgment as under-

“29 …......... We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest

court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its

superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating

a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a

proceeding. If that be so, the notices issued by the authority signifying

the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High

Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves could be without

jurisdiction.”

15. The doctrine of precedent as has been applicable to the decision of the

parent High Court is not applicable to the decision of other High Courts as

constitutionally they have no supervisory powers over the Courts of lower

judiciary in other States. The above discussion in respect of constitutional

provisions making a precedent of a parent High Court binding on the Courts of

the lower judiciary are concerning its subordinate courts in view of the above

discussed provisions and hierarchy of Courts. Hence the doctrine of precedent

cannot be applicable to the decisions of other High Courts. However, the

decisions of other High Courts have persuasive value and can be used as advisory,

if on the same point, there is no decision of a parent High Court.

PER INCURIAM DECISIONS:

8 (AIR 1962 S.C.1893)

of 29

16. Per incuriam decisions do not have binding effect. Per incuriam decisions

mean where the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or

of a court of coordinate jurisdiction or when the decision is given in ignorance of

the terms of a statute or a rule having statutory force. Referring the Halsbury’s

Laws of England, the Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer alias Kalika

Singh & others,9 examined the circumstances in which a decision is said to have

been rendered per incuriam as follows:

“A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance

of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction

which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case

to follow; or when it has acted in ignorance of House of Lords decision, in

which case it must follow that decisions; or when the decision is given in

ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force.”

CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT STRENGTH

17. The Five-Judges Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in case

of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra,10

has observed that,

“The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench

of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or

co-equal strength”.

18. This view is followed by Honourable Bombay High Court in case of

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Syeda Aleemunbee w/o.

Syed Razaq.11 To quote Honourable Bombay High Court-

“28) It is well-settled, judicial process demands that a judge move within

the frame-work of relevant legal rules and the coveted modes of those for

ascertaining them. The judicial robe has its inbuilt discipline, which

mandates, for a High Court to adhere in tune with the precedent of

Supreme Court and in particular of the larger Benches. This is more

so, if there are divergent views by Honourble Judges of the Supreme

Court, on identical issues.”

It has been further observed [quoting observation of Honourable Supreme

Court12] in Reliance case that-

9 (2003) 5 SCC 448

10(2005) 2 SCC 673 and also in AIR 2005 SC 752

11 First Civil Appeal No. 1611 of 2013, decided on 03.03.2014 [Hon. Shri Justice Chandiwal]

of 29

“we are of the view that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this

Court binds a Bench of two learned Judges of this court and that

judicial discipline populate them to follow it regardless of their view

about its correctness. At the most they should have ordered that

matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.” … “Judgment of

constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court has binding effect. A

decision of three-judges Bench of Honourable Supreme Court has also a

binding effect than to a judgment of Honourable Lordships of Division

Bench.”

19. Likewise in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra and Others, 13 while addressing the issue of per incuriam,

Honourable Supreme Court has observed that,

“The analysis of English and Indian Law clearly leads to the irresistible

conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a

judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a co-equal strength is

also binding on a Bench of Judges of co-equal strength.......In case there is

no judgment of a Constitution Bench or larger Bench of binding nature

and if the court doubts the correctness of the judgments by two or three

judges, then the proper course would be to request Hon'ble the Chief

Justice to refer the matter to a larger Bench of appropriate strength."

20. The ratio laid down in Sidharam Mhetre's case on the above point is

reiterated again in Rattiram & Ors v/s. State of M. P. Through inspector of police

with Satyanarayan & ors v/s. The state of Madhya Pradesh through incharge,

Police Station Cantt.,14 by full bench of Honourable Supreme Court. An useful

reference can be made in this context to case of Sudeep Kumar Bafna versus

State of Maharashtra and another,15 also.

CONCLUSION:

21. Law expects that we should understand the doctrine of precedent and

apply it to achieve the uniformity in the application of law and legal concepts.

12

(2001) 4 SCC 448 13

[AIR 2011 SC 312 : ( 2011) 1 SCC 694] 14

2012 STPL(Web) 121 (SC) 15

2014 STPL(Web) 209 (SC)

of 29

RES JUDICATA

1. “Res Judicata” is a Latin maxim which means ‘the thing has been judged’ or

‘things already adjudged’, meaning thereby that the issue before the Court has

already been decided by another Court, between the same parties. Res Judicata,

as a concept, is applicable both in case of Civil as well as Criminal legal system.

2. The term is also used to mean as to ‘bar to re-litigation’ of such cases

between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems.

Once a final judgment has been announced in a lawsuit, the subsequent judges

who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the

earlier one, they would apply the Res-Judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of

the first judgment. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly

finished, but perhaps mostly, to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time

of the Judicial System. Therefore, the same case cannot be taken up again either

in the same or in the different Court of India. This is just to prevent them from

multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff may not recover damages from

the defendant twice for the same injury.

Pre-Requisites For Applying Principle Of Res Judicata :-

1) The matter must be directly and substantially in issue in two suits

2) The prior suit must have been between the same parties or persons

claiming under them

3) Such parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit

4) Subject to the provisions contained in Explanation VIII, the Court which

determined the earlier suit must be competent to try the later suit or the

suit in which such issue is subsequently raised

5) The question directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit

should have been heard and finally decided in the earlier suit.

3. The provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C. are not exhaustive even though it has

very wide and enlarged amplitude. Section 11 of C.P.C. “does not affect the

jurisdiction of the Court” but “operates as a bar to the trial” of the suit or issue. If

the matter in the suit was directly and substantially in issue (and finally decided)

in the prior suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a

Court, they are barred to litigate the subsequent suit in which such issue has been

raised. Thus, this doctrine of Res Judicata is a fundamental concept based on

of 29

public policy and private interest. It is conceived in the larger public interest,

which requires that every litigation must come to an end. It therefore, applies to

civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ

petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, etc.

4. An ordinary litigation being a party or claiming under a party of a former

suit cannot avoid the applicability of section 11 of C.P.C. as it is mandatory except

on the ground of fraud or collusion as the case may be. The onus of proof lies on

the party relying on the theory of Res Judicata. The provisions of section 11 of

C.P.C. are “not directory but mandatory”. The judgment in a former suit can be

avoided only by taking recourse to section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act on the

ground of fraud or collusion.

5. The doctrine of res judicata has been explained in the simplest manner in

Satyadhyan v/s. Deorajin Debi,16as-

"The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to

judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res judicata, it shall not be

adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future

litigation. When a matter, whether on a question of fact or a question of

law, has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and

the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court

or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will

be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to

canvass the matter again"

6. In Sulochana Amma v/s. Narayanan Nair,17 it has been observed that,

"S. 11 embodies the rule of conclusiveness as evidence or bars as a plea an

issue tried in an earlier suit founded on a plaint in which the matter is

directly and substantially in issue and became final. In a later suit

between the same parties or their privies in a court competent to try such

subsequent suit in which the issue has been directly and substantially

raised and decided in the judgment and decree in the former suit would

operate as res judicata. S. 11 does not create any right or interest in the

property, but merely operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. In

other words, it aims to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and

accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in

the former suit between the same parties or their privies, been decided

16

AIR 1960 SC 941 17

AIR 1994 SC 152

of 29

and became final, so that parties are not vexed twice over, vexatious

litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the court is

saved. It is based on public policy, as well as private justice. They would

apply, therefore, to all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It

equally applies to quasi-judicial proceedings of the tribunals other than

the civil courts".

7. The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims-

(i) nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa which means no man

should be vexed twice for the same cause;

(ii) interest republicae ut sit finis litium which means it is in the interest of the

State that there should be an end to a litigation; and

(iii) res judicata pro veritate occipitur which means a judicial decision must be

accepted as correct.

8. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata is the combined result of public policy

reflected in maxims (2) and (3) and private justice expressed in maxim (1); and

they apply to all judicial proceedings whether civil or criminal. Thus, there should

be an issue raised and decided, not merely a finding on an incidental question for

reaching such a decision. If such issue is not raised and if on any other issue, if,

incidentally and finding is recorded, it would not come within the periphery of

principle of res judicata18.

Difference between res judicata and O. II R. 2 of C. P. C and estoppel.

Res Judicata O. 2 r.2

This refers to plaintiff's duty to bring

forward all the grounds of attack in support

of his claim.

This requires the Plaintiff to claim

all reliefs flowing from the same

cause of action.

This refers to both the parties i.e. Plaintiff as

well as Defendent and precludes a suit as

well as defence.

This refers to only to the Plaintiff

and bars a suit.

10. The doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of

estoppel. Res judicata is really estoppel by verdict or estoppel by judgment. Even

then the doctrine of res judicata differs in essential particulars from the doctrine

18

[Madhvi Amma Bhavani Amma V/s K.P.M. Pallai, (2006) 6 SCC 301.]

of 29

of estoppel. Res Judicata results from a decision of the court, whereas, estoppel

flows from the acts of parties. Res Judicata bars multiplicity of suits, whereas,

estoppel prevents multiplicity of representations. Res Judicata ousts the

jurisdiction of the court to try the case and to reopen the matter which is already

adjudicated upon and thereby precludes an enquiry in limine. The estoppel is only

a rule of evidence and shuts the mouth of a party

Res judicata & Constructive res judicata: (Matter constructively in issue)

11. The principle of constructive res judicata emerges from Explanation IV

when read with Explanation III both of which explain the concept of “matter

directly and substantially in issue”. Explanation III clarifies that a matter is directly

and substantially in issue, when it is alleged by one party and denied or admitted

(expressly or impliedly) by the other. Explanation IV provides that where any

matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack

in the former suit, even if it was not actually set up as a ground of attack or

defence, shall be deemed and regarded as having been constructively in issue

directly and substantially in the earlier suit. Therefore even though a particular

ground of defence or attack was not actually taken the earlier suit, it was capable

of being taken in the earlier suit, it becomes a bar in regard to the said issue being

taken in the second suit in the view of the principle of constructive res judicata.

Constructive res judicata deals with ground of attack and defence which ought to

have been raised, but nor raised, whereas Order II of the Code relates to relief

which ought to have been claimed on the same cause of action but not claimed.

12. In Direct Recurit Class II Engineeering Officers’ Association V/s State

of Maharashtra,19 a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court reiterated the

principle of Constructive Res judicata after referring to observations in Forward

Construction Co. V/s Prabhat Mandal,20 that-

“an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter

determined but as to every other matter which the party might and ought

to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially

connected with subject matter of the litigation an every matter coming

into the legitimate purview of an original action but in respect of the

matter of claim and defence.”

19

(1990) 2 SCC 71=AIR 1990 SC 1607 20

(1986) 1 SCC 100=AIR 1986 SC 391

of 29

13. Thereafter, in Ramchandra Vrs. Vithu Mahure,21 Honourable Supreme

Court has explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata as applicable in

Indian law. A sub-set of the doctrine of res judicata, emanating from Section 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, the doctrine of constructive res judicata sets to

naught any claims being raised in a subsequent proceeding where in an earlier

proceeding such claim should/ought to have been raised and decided. A rule of

prudence, thus, the doctrine seeks to bar determination and enforcement of

claims which have not been raised at an appropriate juncture in judicial

proceedings.

Matter in issue:

14. The expression 'matter in issue' means the right litigated between the

parties i. e. the facts on which the right is claimed and the law applicable to the

determination of that issue. Explanation III clarifies that a matter cannot be said

to have been directly and substantially in issue in a suit unless it was alleged by

one party and denied or admitted, either expressly or impliedly by the other. A

matter can be said to be substantially in issue if it is of importance and value for

the decision of the case. The word 'substantially' means as 'in effect though not in

express terms'. It avoids the supposition that the plaintiff may evade the

application of the rule, merely by varying his form of pleading or by describing the

subject matter of his suit or expressing his rights in different language. It is,

however, not necessary that a specific and distinct issue should have been

framed; but, it must be necessary to decide the question in order to grant relief

to the plaintiff. Thus, an unnecessary or irrelevant issue, the decision of which

either way will not affect the final outcome of the suit, cannot be of any

importance or value for the decision of the suit and cannot, therefore, be said to

be 'substantially in issue'. It is not necessary that the cause of action in the two

suits should be identical for invoking the bar of res judicata. It is also not

necessary that to invoke this principle, there must be similarity of the subject

matter in both the suits. The question whether a matter is 'directly and

substantially in issue' would depend upon whether a decision on such an issue

would materially affect the decision of the suit. Whether a decision in an earlier

litigation operates as res judicata the court must look at the nature of the

litigation, what were the issues raised and what was actually decided therein. In

other words, the question has to be determined with reference to the plaint,

written statement, issues and judgment.

21

AIR 2010 SC 818

of 29

Matter collaterally or incidentally in issue:

15. A collateral or incidental issue means an issue which is ancillary to the

direct and substantive issue. For example: A executes 4 bonds in B's favour. B

sues A on two bonds. A contends that the said bonds as also other two bonds

were satisfied by payment. The suit is decreed on the ground that none of the

bonds was satisfied. A then sues B for all the four bonds. B pleads res judicata.

The suit is barred in respect of two bonds, but noe barred in respect of the other

two as the issue of satisfaction was merely incidental or collateral to the main

issue in the former suit.

16. Here, reference may be made to the decision of Honourble Supreme Court

in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair,22on the issue between

the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the

same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction

touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata. It

was observed that:

“It is a settled law that in a suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the

purpose of granting injunction the issue directly and substantially arises

in that suit between the parties. When the same is put in issue in a later

suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a

subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit equally operates as a res

judicata.”

Parties under whom they or any of them claim:

17. This comprise of (i) parties actually present in the former suit; (ii) parties

who claim under the parties to the suit (privies); and (iii) persons who were

represented by a party in a former suit. A person is said to claim under another if

he has derived title through that person by assignment or otherwise.

Same title:

18. Same title means same capacity. Title refers to the capacity or interest of a

party, whether he sues or is sued for himself in his own interest or for himself as

representing the interest of another or as representing the interest of others

along with himself and it has nothing to do with the particular cause of action on

which he sues or is sued.

22

(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9

of 29

Competent court:

19. The test is : Is the second suit such as could have been tried by the first

court? If yes, the matter can be res judicata. In order that a decision in a former

suit may operate as res judicata, the court which decided the former suit must

have been either a court of exclusive jurisdiction; or a court of concurrent

jurisdiction; or a court of limited jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

20. To support the plea of res-judicata, it is not enough that the same matter

is in issue, it is also important that the matter has been heard and finally decided.

This expression, 'heard and finally decided' refers to a matter on which the court,

having exercised its judicial mind, has recorded a finding and arrived at a decision

on a contested manner. The principle behind the doctrine is in the interest of the

public, to avoid conflicting decisions on the same issues by different courts and to

estop parties to litigate or raise same issues again and again.

--o—

of 29

Sentencing Policy:

The summary cannot be better started, without quoting Mr. Thomas

Szasz, a US Psychiatrist, in his book ‘The second sin- Punishment’ 1973. He has

indited that-

“If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated.

This, and this alone, is why lawbreakers ought to be punished; to

authenticate as good and to encourage as useful, law-abiding

behavior. The aim of Criminal Law cannot be correction or

deterrence; it can only be the maintenance of the legal order.”

The topic is a daily affair for a judge. In cases culminating in conviction of

accused, a Judge has to work out his sentencing policy. But, in Indian Criminal

Justice Delivery system, there is no framework of policy while sentencing

accused. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the system. But, it

is the weakest part of administration of Criminal Justice in our country. To

reiterate, there is no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial

Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it,

after he is held guilty of the charges. Though the Madhava Menon Committee and

Mallimath Committee have recommended introduction of sentencing guidelines,

it is yet to be developed in our country.

Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle,

and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination

of sentences. It is necessary to mention that section 235(2) and section 248(2) of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandate a convicting Court, to hear accused

on point of nature and quantum of sentence. The importance of these provisions

and the procedure is underscored in case of Santa Sing versus State of

Punjab.23 It is observed that-

“Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 235(2) and 248(2) ex-

facie vitiates the order as it causes to the accused inherent and implicit

prejudice, because of the infraction of the rules of natural justice

according to which accused is completely deprived of an opportunity to

represent to the court which manifestly results in a serious failure of

justice.”

Basically, this exercise places the Judge in a better position to know

circumstances prevailing at the time of commission of offence. Moreover, such 23

AIR 1976 SC 2386

of 29

interaction with accused enables the Judge to understand his dependencies, his

criminal antecedents and chances of reformation. All Courts do follow mandates

of the aforesaid provisions and accused gets a chance to submit about sentence.

Still, the practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now

unknown to civilized societies. Such radical departure from the principle of

proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now, for

a single grave infraction, drastic sentences are imposed. In fact, uniformly

disproportionate punishment brings undesirable practical consequences.

In State of Punjab versus Prem Sagar and others24, Honourable

Supreme Court has observed that-

A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a

person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice

delivery system. The Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on

sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of section 235, sub-

section (2) of section 248, section 325 as also section 360 and 361 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said

provisions lay down the principle that the Court in awarding the sentence

must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors;

sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them. Although a wide

discretion has been conferred upon the Court, the same must be exercised

judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime

has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also

relevant. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a

question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior

Courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show

anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of

punishment for commission of a similar type of offences varies from

minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the

principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have

been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.

Expressing similar concern about sentencing policy, Honourable Apex

Court has observed in case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana versus State

of West Bengal,25 that-

24

(2008) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 550 25

1994 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRIMINAL) 358

of 29

“In recent years, the rising crime rate particularly violent crime against

women has made the criminal sentencing by the courts a subject of

concern. Today there are admitted disparities. Some criminals get very

harsh sentences while many receive grossly different sentence for an

essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large number even go

unpunished thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making

justice suffer by weakening the system’s credibility. Of course, it is not

possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating to imposing of

sentence but the object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does

not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the

satisfaction that justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences in the

absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of factors and

after considering all those factors and taking an overall view of the

situation, impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one.

Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating

circumstances have also to be taken into consideration. The measure of

punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime;

the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of

the victim. Imposing of appropriate punishment is the manner in which

the courts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals.

Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the

crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts

must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of

the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition

of appropriate punishment.

So, it was expressed and ruled down that nature and quantum of sentence

is depended upon certain factors. No such factors were enlisted anywhere, as

such straitjacket formula cannot be laid. But, in case of Soman versus State of

Kerala26, it is been observed that-

Nonetheless, if one goes through decisions of this Court carefully, it would

appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different

factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality,

deterrence, rehabilitation etc.. In a proportionality analysis, it is

necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the

commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence

depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness. The question

is whether the consequences of the offence can be taken as the measure

26

(2013) 11 SUPRME COURT CASES 382

of 29

for determining its harmfulness? In addition, quite apart from the

seriousness of offence, can the consequences of an offence be a legitimate

aggravating (as opposed to mitigating) factor while awarding a

sentence. Thus, to understand the relevance of consequences of criminal

conduct from a Sentencing standpoint, one must examine: (1) whether

such consequences enhance the harmfulness of the offence; and (2)

whether there are any aggravating factors that need to be taken into

account by the Courts while deciding on the sentence. …. From the above,

one may conclude that-

1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different

rationales- most prominent amongst which would be proportionality

and deterrence.

2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from

both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint.

3. In so far as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be

commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence.

4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the

consequences resulting fromit.

5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be property attributed to

the offender, if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and

underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so

high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail

vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence even though

any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some

aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some

grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor.

Similarly In case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Babu Barkare,27 and

in case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Munna Choubey28, it is observed that-

“in operating sentencing system, the law should adopt the corrective

machinery as deterrence based on factual matrix. By different

modulation sentencing processes be stern where it should be, and

tempered with mercy where it warrant to be. The facts and given

circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of

27


(2005) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 710

of 29

consideration. Therefore, under sympathy to impose inadequate sentence

would do more harm to the justice system to undermine, the public

confidence in the efficacy of the law, and the society could not long

endure under such serious threat. Therefore, the duty of every court is to

award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the

manner in which it was executed or committed.

Recently, Honourable Apex Court has laid down six basic principles of

sentencing in Mohammed Jamiluddin Nasir versus State of West Bengal,29 as

follows-

“153. Having noted the above decisions on the question of sentence we

formulate the following fundamental principles to be borne in mind while

dealing with the sentence to be imposed in respect of crimes committed of

such grotesque nature.

1) The sentence to be awarded should achieve twin objectives

a) Deterrence

b) Correction

2) The Court should consider social interest and consciousness of the

society for awarding appropriate punishment.

3) Seriousness of the crime and the criminal history of the accused is yet

another factor.

4) Graver the offence longer the criminal record should result severity in

the punishment.

5) Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm

to the public

6) Imposition of inadequate sentence would undermine the public

confidence in the efficacy of law and society cannot endure such threats.”

Thus, After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each

case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence,

the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has

been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant

circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.

29

AIR 2014 SC 2587

of 29

Alongside these factors, the Theories of Punishment are also to be borne

in mind in letter and spirit. These theories enunciate the aims of sentencing the

convicted accused. There are four renowned theories of punishment, and each is

distinctly characterized. Retributive, Deterrent, Preventive and Reformative are

those four theories. It is desirable to quickly explore them.

Retributive Theory: Retributive theory is vengeance and aims at taking the

revenge. This theory is based on the maxim of “tooth for tooth or eye for eye”.

This theory is unscientific and unsocial. Eminent Jurist Salmond has said that

“conception of retributive justice still remains a prominent place in popular

thought.”

Deterrent: This theory aims at severity of punishment. This theory aims to deter

the criminal from committing similar or other offences. This theory is doubted on

the ground of efficiency of this theory, since, the severity of punishment on the

wrong doer fails to produce a deterrent effect on the others.

Preventive: This theory aims at elimination of crime from society. It is quite

satisfactory, but Proponents of this theory believes that what can successfully

help in achieving this objective is not severity but certainty in punishment.

Reformative Theory: This theory is aimed at the reformation of the offender's

law-breaking tendencies. The aim is to secure conformity, not through fear, but

through some inner positive motivation on the part of the individual. The strategy

of reformation, may involve therapy, counseling, intervention in the family, skills

training and so on. Sentencing based on this theory, improves the offender's

character so that he is less often inclined to commit offences again even when he

can do so without fear of penalty.

To boot, society considers the justice delivery system as an instrument of

preserving peace and tranquility and stopping crime. It may be difficult to define

the concept of “justice”. It not only includes the right of an accused or a convict,

but also of victims of crime. The society has legitimate expectation from Court

that those who commit crime should be punished and punished after fair and

speedy trial. Delayed trials, unmerited acquittal and apathy towards expectations

of victims shock the collective conscience of society.

Crime has come to cast off rigid procedures and rigid interpretation of law.

It is necessary to make our system simpler, faster and less technical and people

friendly. Our interpretations of law must adopt new realities of life vide applying

statutory and procedural laws. Judges must insure that an innocent person is not

of 29

convicted and should also endeavor to see that those who are guilty of heinous

crimes do not go Scot-free. The duty of a judge is highlighted and laid down by

Honourable Supreme Court in case of Ambika Prasad versus State of Delhi.30

Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that

“criminal trial meant for doing justice not to the accused but also to the

victim and the society, so that law and order maintained. The judge does

not proceed over the criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is

punished but the judge also presides to see that guilty man does not

escape. One is important as the other. Both the public duties which the

judge has to perform.”

Likewise, there is always discussion about Death Sentence of sentencing a

person to Capital Punishment. In case of Jagmohan Singh versus State of Uttar

Pradesh,31 Honourable Supreme Court has enunciated an approach of balancing

mitigating and aggravating factors of the crime when capital punishment is to be

imposed. The approach was called into question in case of Bachan Singh versus

State of Punjab.32 In Bachan Singh’s case, Honourable Supreme Court has

emphasized that since an amendment was made to India’s Code of Criminal

Procedure, the rule has changed so that ‘the offence of murder shall be punished

with the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court can depart from that rule and

impose the sentence of death, only if there are special reasons for doing so.’

However, more recently, in case of Sangeet and another versus State of

Haryana,33 Honourable Apex Court has noted that the approach in Bachan’s case

has not been fully adopted subsequently that primacy still seems to be given to

the nature of crime, and that the circumstances of the criminal, referred to in

Bachan Singh appear to have been taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing

process. In Sangeet’s case, Honurable Supreme Court has concluded that

This court has not endorsed the approach of aggravating and

mitigating circumstances in [the 1971 case of] Bachan Singh. However,

this approach has been adopted in several decisions. This needs a fresh

look. In any event there is little or no uniformity in the application of this

approach.

Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime while mitigating

circumstances relate to the criminal. A balance sheet cannot be drawn up

30


(1973) 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 541 32



of 29

for comparing the two. The considerations for both are distinct and

unrelated. The use of the mantra of aggravating and mitigating

circumstances needs a review.

In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are

equally important. We have, unfortunately, not taken the sentencing

process as seriously as it should be with the result that in capital offences,

it has become judge-centric sentencing rather than principled sentencing.

The Constitution Bench of this Court has not encouraged standardization

and categorization of crimes and even otherwise it is not possible to

standardize and categorize all crimes.

The grant of remission is statutory. However, to prevent its

arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and

substantive checks in the statute. These need to be faithfully enforced.

Recent changes have been made to the crime of rape in India’s Penal

Code. Absent any aggravating factors, the section stipulates a minimum

punishment of imprisonment of seven years up to maximum of life, and a

mandatory fine. In situations where certain aggravated situations occur,

punishment is for a minimum term of ten years up to a maximum of life

imprisonment, and a mandatory fine.

To be compendious, convicting Judge shall pay heed to these guiding

precedents on the topic. In absence of any policy, the above decisions should be

taken as guidelines and should be followed as doctrine of precedent also

demands them to follow. Too much disparity in sentences, awarded by judicial

officers, raises doubt about the system and the approach as well as attitude of

the presiding officers. Time has now come to have more matured and rational

approach to re-establish the faith in the judicial system and to achieve the

desired results of punishments for any proven crime in society.

---0---

of 29

Victim Compensation Scheme:

Honourable Apex Court of India has observed in case of National Human

Right Commission versus State of Gujarat and another,34 that-

“The role of victim in a criminal trial can never be lost sight of. He or she

is an inseparable stakeholder in the adjudicating process. … The

protection is necessary so that there is no miscarriage of justice; but

protection is also necessary to restore in them, a sense of human dignity.”

The term “VICTIM” is defined under section 2 (wa) of The Code Of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 as, “A person who has suffered any loss or injury

caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been

charged and the expression victim includes his or her guardian or legal heir.”

The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and

Abuse of Power was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in

resolution 40/34 of 29thNovember, 1985. According to the first paragraph of this

declaration, victims of crime are described as “Persons who, individually or

collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional

suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights,

through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative in

Member States, including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power. It is

they who need protection.”

All victims have a right to seek help and protection from the State as their

fundamental right included in Article 21 which guarantees to every person

protection of his life and personal liberty. In this respect directive principles

contained in Part IV, particularly Article 39(a)- right to adequate means of

livelihood, Article 39-A - seeking free legal aid for seeking justice. The authorities

of the State in each district through Collector being the district administrative

head, the Superintendent of Police, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, and the

District Legal Services Authority are constitutionally and statutorily obliged to

extend help and support to the victims.

We should reassure the victim that he/she is not forgotten in the entire

system. In the case Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum versus Union of

India and others, it is been directed the National Commission for women to

evolve a “scheme so as to wipe out the tears of unfortunate victims of rape”.

34


of 29

Honourable Supreme Court has observed that having regard to the Directive

Principles contained in Article 38(1) of the Constitution, it was necessary to set up

criminal injuries Compensation Board, as rape victims besides the mental

anguish, frequently incur substantial financial loss and in some cases are too

traumatized to continue in employment. It is further directed that,

compensation for victims shall be awarded by Court on conviction of the

offender and by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whether or not

conviction has taken place. The Board shall take into account the pain, suffering

and shock as well as loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of child

birth, if this occurs as result of the rape.

The 152nd Report of the Law Commission had recommended the

introduction of section 357-A prescribing inter alia that the compensation be

awarded at the time of sentencing to the victims of the crime. The 154th Report of

the Law Commission of India noticed that its earlier recomendation had still not

been given effect to by the government. It went one step further and

recommended that it was necessary to incorporate a new section 357-A in the

Code to provide for a comprehensive scheme of payment of compensation for all

victims fairly and adequately by the Courts. Heads of compensation are for (i) for

injury, (ii) for any loss or damage to the property of the claimant which occurred

in the course of his/her sustaining the injury and (iii) in case of death from injury

resulting in loss of support to dependants.

Therefore, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended by The Code

of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2008 (5 of 2009) has now an added

provision in the form of the section 357-A on victim compensation.

The Government of Maharashtra has now in the year 2013 introduced the

victim compensation scheme as contemplated under dection 357-A(1) of the

Code. The scheme is called 'Manodhairya (euks/kS;Z)', the scheme is implemented

from 2nd October 2013. As part of the scheme, the state would give monetary

compensation in the range of ` 2,00,000/- to ` 3,00,000/- to victims of crime

especially of rape, child sex abuse and acid attacks. Victims who suffer from

complete disfigurement of face or physical handicap in acid attack will get

compensation of ` 3,00,000/- while in case of minor injuries ` 50,000/-. There is

also a provision to help women and child victims meet emergency expenses up to

` 50,000/- apart from a host of support services to victims such as housing,

counseling medical and legal aid, education and vocational training that the

scheme offers. A district level criminal injuries relief and rehabilitation boards,

of 29

headed by the district collector, will implement the scheme and it will be funded

by the state government till the time the central government introduces a bigger

scheme. It is also worth to mention about recent verdict that compensation

payable under section 357A of CrPC by the State Government shall be in addition

to payment of fine to victim under section 326A or 376D of IPC. It is so ruled

down in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 24 of 2014.35

This development of law is based on certain guiding precedents. The case

of Hari Krishnan and the State of Haryana versus Sukhbir Singh and

others,36 is the most important case where Honourable Supreme Court has

reiterated its firm understading once again, in following words-

“The power under section 357 of CrPC is a measure of responding

appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender.

It is to some extent, a recompensatory measure to rehabilitate to an

extent the beleaguered victims of the crime, a modern constructive

approach to crime, a step forward in our Criminal Justice System.” …

“Section 357 of the CrPC is an important provision but Courts have

seldom invoked it. This section of law empowers the Court to award

compensation while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to

conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way

of compensation to the victim who has suffered by the action of the

accused. This power to award compensation is not ancillary to other

sentences but is in addition thereto. It is a measure of responding

appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender.

It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step

forward in our criminal justice system.We therefore recommend to all

courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a

better way.

It is worth to mention that there is no upper limit or cap to the amount of

compensation to be awarded under section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1972. It is been consistently held so. Moreover, to know paying capacity of the

accused, a small inquiry is required to be held while quantifying the amount of

compensation, as held in Dilip Dahanukar versus Kotak Mahindra Company

Limited.37 As regards to enforcing such order of compensation, useful reference

35

AIR 2014 SC 2816 36

AIR 1988 SC 2127 37

2008 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 22 (SC)

of 29

can be made to case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar versus Jagdeeshan, it has

been observed that-

“When the Supreme Court pronounced Hari’s case that Court may enforce

an order to pay compensation by imposing sentence in default, it is open

to all the courts in India to follow the said course.”

Afterwards and recently, in K. A. Abbas H.S.A. versus Sabu Joseph and

another,38 a question was posed as to whether in default of payment of

compensation ordered under section 357(3) of CrPC, a default sentence can be

imposed or not. After considering all the relevant provisions and authorities on

the point, Honourable Supreme Court has ruled down that-

“Section 421 clearly provides that an order of compensation under

section 357(3) will be recoverable in the same way as if it were a fine.

Section 421 further provides that the mode of recovery of a fine and

the section clearly provides that a person can be imprisoned for

non-payment of fine. Therefore, going by the provisions of the Code, the

intention of the legislature is clearly to ensure that mode of recovery of a

fine and compensation is on the same footing. In light of the aforesaid

reasoning, the contention of the accused that there can be no

sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of compensation

under section 357(3) should fail.”

It is necessary to explore some more precedents in this context. In famous

and landmark case of Rudal Shah veruss State of Bihar,39 Bihar Government

was directed to pay compensation of ` 30000/- to petitioner, who had to remain

in jail for 14 years, even after his acquittal, because of irresponsible behavior of

State Government Officers.

In another case, Railway Boards versus Chandrima Das, 40

compensation of ` 10,00,000/- was awarded to victim of rape at Rail Yatri Niwas.

Honourable Supreme Court has iterated importance of compensation and

landmark decision in case of Bodhisathwa Gautam versus Subhra41, was

pronounced. In said case, Honourable Supreme Court has awarded an interim

compensation of ` 1000/- per month to victim of rape, until the charges are

decided by the trial Court. Similarly, Honourable Supreme Court has awarded

38

2010 STPL(Web) 384 SC 39


AIR 2000 SC 988 41


of 29

compensation to widow of a convict, who was killed by co-accused in jail while

serving sentence, in case of Kewal Patil versus State of Uttar Pradesh42.

In case of People's Union for Civil LibertiesV/sUnion of India,43

Honourable Supreme Court held that killing of two persons in fake encounter by

police was clear violation of the right to life guaranteed in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Honourable Apex Court has awarded ` 1,00,000/- as

compensation to each deceased. Then, in case of Delhi Domestic working

women's Forum v/s. Union of India,44 As per the Directive principles under

Article 38(1) of The Constitution of India, compensation for Victim shall be

awarded by the court on Conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Board whether or not a Conviction has taken place.

To conclude, it must be kept in mind that punishing accused and caring for

victim are two sides of same coin. Criminal justice system must not lose its sight

to imposition of appropriate sentence to culprit and also to physical,

psychological, economic, social rehabilitation of victims. Award of proportionate

compensation to victims enhances level of Justice System from Criminal Justice

System to Curative Justice System. Prior to Code of Criminal Procedure

(Amendment Act) 2008, India was lacking a comprehensive legislation for

compensation to victims of crime. Compassionate treatment of Victims under the

criminal justice system itself leads to belief in the system which is enhanced by

way of compensation programs, independent of conviction of offenders.

The summary of this topic must be concluded with reference to

observations observation of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of

Karnataka .Vs.Krishnappa,45 in paragraph no. 15 that

“A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory

armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal

provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.”

---0---

42


AIR 1997 SC 1203 44


AIR 2000 SC 1470

SUMMARY Law of Precedents and Res Judicata Sentencing Policy ...

Documents

Transcript of SUMMARY Law of Precedents and Res Judicata Sentencing Policy ...